Thursday, October 31, 2013

Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize
him. – Genesis 42:8 (NET)

Delving into the life of Joseph
will almost invariably produce a comparative analogy to the life of Jesus, and
with what is transpiring in association with this particular verse, the
statement proves to be true. The reader of Scripture can never be allowed
to forget that the way in which Israel thought about itself, the way the
disciples would have heard and understood the words and ministry of Jesus, and
even the way that Jesus thought of and presented Himself to Israel, would all
have been couched in the regularly told history of Israel, as grounded in the
Abrahamic covenant and in the history of the Egyptian exodus.

To that end, not only was every Passover an explicit
reminder of their exodus experience and that their God was the God of exodus,
but the long subjugation to various empires---the latest of which was Rome---was
productive of a general (though not exclusive) mindset of a people in an exile
from the full manifestation of their God’s promises to them. Thus, among many, there was a consistent
longing for a new exodus led by a new deliverer.

Owing to that the groaning
desire of freedom from Rome’s yoke (not unlike the groaning of Israel in Egypt,
as recorded in Exodus), one can be assured that thoughts of the Creator God’s
miraculous deliverance of His people from the power of Egypt would never have
been too far from their minds. Quite naturally, the story of Joseph,
which was so closely connected to the story of Israel’s arrival in Egypt (which
was itself part of the God of Israel’s confirmation of His promise to Abraham),
and which was itself a poignant story of vindication and exaltation after an
ordeal of wrongful suffering, would have been a popular story in Israel.

Because it offers a tight analogy to that which was
experienced by Jesus (suffering, vindication, exaltation), stories of Joseph, especially
following the Resurrection of Jesus, would have been fertile ground for gaining
an even greater understanding of Jesus and His mission, of the covenant God
that raised Him from the dead, and of the redeeming, rescuing movement of that
same God throughout all of history---with comprehension of that work, enacted
primarily through His covenant people, given shape by the Abrahamic covenant
and its associated pointers and promises that are rehearsed and recorded
throughout the written history (including the poets and prophets) of Israel.

Now, some misguided souls might
be tempted to look at these analogies from a resurrection-denying perspective
and draw the conclusion that followers of Jesus, subsequent to His unexpected
and defeating death and seeking to keep alive the cult that had grown around
Him, simply searched the Scriptures so as to pull together bits and pieces by
which it was possible to build a better foundation for their ongoing worship
and subsequent proclamation of Him as the embodiment of Israel’s God.

However, reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of God’s
redemptive plan that was commenced through Abraham, carried on through Israel,
climaxed in Jesus, and continually out-worked through the Church of Christ,
becomes an exercise in learning about the Creator God and His purposes, so that
one might gain a greater measure of trust through what is somehow understood to
be the out-spiring work of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, believers come to be able to identify the places that
connect them to the culminating event in the history of the entire cosmos,
which was the Christ-event. This operation is undertaken, presumably, so
that those that confess Jesus as Lord and who seek to live according to that
proclamation, might be able to more effectively operate by the mysterious power
of the Resurrection, that they might be the means by which the Creator God
applies that transformative power, by the Spirit, through that Gospel
proclamation of Jesus as Lord.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

It is now appropriate
to return to the question of why this intense response from the respective
councils? What had Jesus and Stephen said? To what had they
alluded? The search for the answer leads to the book of Daniel, which was
an important, highly regarded, and determinative work of prophecy (highly
charged politics and polemics, in the Jewish prophetic tradition) in the time
of Jesus and Stephen. Specifically, one would look to the seventh chapter
of Daniel, in which Daniel himself is said to have recorded a vision of four
beasts that came up from the sea.

The fourth of these
beasts was said to be “dreadful, terrible, and very strong. It had two
large rows of iron teeth. It devoured and crushed, and anything that was
left it trampled with its feet” (7:7b). This beast was also said to have
had ten horns. Daniel says “As I was contemplating the horns, another
horn---a small one---came up between them, and three of the former horns were
torn out by the roots to make room for it. This horn had eyes resembling
human eyes and a mouth speaking arrogant things” (7:8). A bit later on,
Daniel reports that the “horn began to wage war against the holy ones and was
defeating them” (7:21b). This was reported to have gone on until “the
Ancient of Days arrived and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of
the Most High” (7:22a).

Prior to this, Daniel
reports “I was watching until the beast”---this being the one with the horn
that was waging war against the holy ones of the Most High---“was killed and
its body destroyed and thrown into the flaming fire” (7:11b). After this
occurred, “with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was
approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before
Him. To Him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All
peoples, nations, and languages were serving Him. His authority is
eternal and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed”
(7:13b-14).

Now what does this
have to do with Stephen and Jesus? Well, when Jesus stands and says to
the high priest that he (the high priest) will see “the Son of Man sitting at
the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven,” He is making a
well-understood reference to Daniel seven. He also seems to be referring
to Himself as the Son of Man. So unless He is referring to the high
priest as the Ancient of Days, the only entity to whom Jesus can be making
reference when He tells the high priest that he will see these things, is the
beast and the horn that is waging war against the saints of God.

What is found here is
Jesus equating the high priest with the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision.
This would appear to be made abundantly clear by the high priest’s now more
than understandable response, in which he tears his clothes, pronounces Jesus
to be a blasphemer, and sentences Him to death. This is quite understandable
if one realizes what Jesus is saying to and about the high priest.

Stephen stands before
the exact same high priest and speaks of Jesus standing at the right hand of Israel’s
God. With this, Stephen makes a clear
allusion to Daniel seven (and to Jesus’ own words that would be well-remembered
by the high priest), referring to Jesus as the Son of Man who is made to stand
before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom after the beast is put
down. So, like Jesus, Stephen also declares the high priest (perhaps even
extending this now to the whole council?) to be the beast and the horn that is
waging war against the saints of the Creator God. The fact that this is
precisely what he is doing, as he follows in the footsteps of his Lord, is made
clear by the already mentioned response. In essence, they labeled him as
a blasphemer, and like the beasts that he had proclaimed them to be, rushed at
him with one intent, having pronounced the verdict of “guilty” and “deserves
death.”

It is a story that is
poignant, dramatic, and telling, but the similarities with Jesus do not end
with the words that condemn the high priest, with the verdict of blasphemy, or
with the carrying out of the sentence of death. Stephen has imitated his
Lord to this point, and he is going to do the same to the end. Turning to
the Gospel of Luke (who was also the author of Acts), one there finds that
Jesus, at the cross, said “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they
are doing” (23:34a). Later, Jesus adds “into Your hands I commit My
spirit” (23:46b).

Though the words of
forgiveness are omitted in many important, ancient manuscripts of Luke, if the
similarities between the immediate events that led to the respective martyrdoms
of both Jesus and Stephen are taken into consideration which were the verdicts
of blasphemy rendered by the council at the insistence of the high priest, then
it is also found that the record of such words being spoken by Jesus carry with
them the ring of truth, as Stephen goes to his own death saying “Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit!” To that he adds, in what must have been a certain and
thoughtful imitation of the tradition being passed on by the Jesus’ disciples,
“Lord, do not hold this sin against them!”
(7:60b)

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Sure there was a pernicious and damaging rumor making its
rounds that Jesus had been raised from the dead; and though this was of some concern
to the council in Jerusalem (which is demonstrated by the fact that Stephen was
brought before the council in the first place), the leaders of the people remained
quite confident that Jesus had not been the “Righteous One” of whom Stephen
spoke. This position was reinforced by
the fact that He had been crucified by the Romans (rather than overthrowing and
driving out the Romans), with things in Israel continuing as they had for quite
some time.

Now, one such as Stephen could
have certainly argued that Jesus did not have the opportunity to drive out the
Romans (though this had clearly not been His goal) because He had been sent to
His death by the very men who would now claim that He could not have been the messiah
because He was crucified by the Romans, dying at their hands rather than
driving them out. Such an argument, however, would be viewed as somewhat beside
the point of the proceedings, and rejected out of hand.

Had this Jesus truly been the messiah---the long awaited
Righteous One and embodiment of Israel’s God---He would not have allowed
Himself to be crucified, so the fact that He was, regardless of who instigated
the proceedings that resulted in crucifixion, clearly demonstrated that He was
not the messiah. Even if He had been raised from the dead, the thinking
would go, His death by crucifixion and the fact that Rome was still in power
over the land and people of the Creator God would trump that fact, and thus
readily continuing to prove that He was, in fact, not the messiah. Yes,
such thinking could very well have been much self-delusion, as an ongoing
attempt to justify themselves and excuse their having brought about the death
of the man that might very well have been the messiah, but at this point, there
could be no back-tracking.

Yet with all that under
consideration, the anger was there and it was real and it resulted in Stephen’s
death. Indeed, this was not the first time that somebody had spoken to
the council in such a way, and it was not the first time that such speaking had
resulted in the speaker’s death, as shall be seen.

Who was that other
person to have spoken words to the council that resulted in death? Well it
was Jesus, of course. In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus is placed
before the Sanhedrin and there was an attempt “to find false testimony against
Jesus so that they could put Him to death” (26:59b), Jesus was instructed to
“under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God”
(26:63b). Jesus replied by saying, “You have said it yourself. But
I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand
of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (26:64). When pressed by
the council, Stephen, echoing the words of Jesus, said “I see the heavens
opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts
7:56)

Upon hearing the
words from Jesus, it is said that “the high priest tore his clothes and
declared, ‘He has blasphemed!... Now you have heard His blasphemy! What
is your verdict?’” (26:65a,c,66a) The council answered with “He is guilty
and deserves death” (26:66b). Mark and Luke both provide a similar
record, though Luke omits the high priest’s tearing of his clothes. The
beastly response that Stephen’s words received has already been noted, so it
does not need to be rehearsed here, but it will suffice to say that it was also
determined that he had blasphemed and was deserving of death. Both Jesus
and Stephen, according to the record of Scripture, were ultimately driven
outside of the city, whereupon the prescribed sentence was set upon them.

Monday, October 28, 2013

“Look,” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the
Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” – Acts 7:56 (NET)

With these words, Stephen fell
into a high degree of disfavor with the men to whom he was speaking.
Stephen, of course, the man often referred to as the first Christian martyr,
was speaking to the Jerusalem council. He had been arrested because some
men, who “were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he
spoke” (6:10), convinced others to accuse Stephen of “speaking blasphemous
words against Moses and God” (6:11b). With this, they are said to have “incited
the people, the elders, and the experts in the law” (6:12a), so he was seized
and brought before the council. It would seem to be clear that there was
a desire for Stephen to suffer a fate similar to the Jesus of whom he
spoke.

When asked by the council to
answer the charges against him, Stephen, in the grand tradition of the prophets
of old, recounted the history of Israel beginning with Abraham. In what
would have been a recognizable fashion to the assembled hearers, Stephen
retraced the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the exodus, the
golden calf, Joshua, David, and Solomon, demonstrating the supreme importance
of Israel’s historically-based self-understanding of themselves as the covenant
people of the Creator God.

He then closed his dissertation by saying “You stubborn
people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the
Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! Which of the prophets did your
ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the
coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become!
You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it”
(7:51-53).

Not unexpectedly (at least in what
would have been the understanding of the recipient of the book of Acts, which
was the second part of the Luke/Acts series), “When they heard these things,
they became furious and ground their teeth at him” (7:54). As Luke tells
this story, it is almost as if he wants to give the reader the impression that
these men were responding to the words of Stephen in the manner of
beasts. Then, Stephen, having “looked intently toward heaven” where he
insists that he “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of
God” (7:55), went ahead and made an addendum to his dissertation by saying
“Look, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand
of God.”

This further enraged his hearers, so much so that, in the previously
implied manner of wild animals, “they covered their ears, shouting out with a
loud voice, and rushed at him with one intent” (7:57). That one intent,
of course, was slaughter, which is made clear by the following verse, which reports
that “When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him”
(7:58a), with this ultimately resulting in his death.

Why did they respond with such reportedly
beastly fury? What was it that Stephen had said that could cause them to
respond in such a way? Certainly, this was not the first time that
somebody had been critical of the council. Were they upset because he had
referred to them as murderers and betrayers? Not likely. In their
minds, in his reference to Jesus, Stephen was merely referring to a blasphemer
with whom they had summarily and properly dealt and who had been rightfully
executed as a state criminal and challenger to the power of Rome, so they were
not inclined to consider themselves to have been murderers and betrayers.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Why were both Daniel
(figuratively) and Jesus (literally) resurrected from their respective (or
intended) graves with no injury? The answer that was given in Daniel’s
case, as has already been seen, was “because he had trusted in his God”
(6:23b). This was true of Daniel, and it is equally true of Jesus.
At this point, Daniel could have easily retreated once again into the words of
the Psalmist, saying “For He did not despise or detest the suffering of the
oppressed; He did not ignore him; when he cried out to Him, He responded”
(22:24). This crying out would be based upon a hopeful trust in the
delivering power of Israel’s faithful, covenant God. Such words could certainly
be found, reflecting that same trust, on the lips of a risen Jesus as
well. Trust was paramount.

Now, the fact that
Jesus’ ordeal of suffering is so closely linked to the story of Daniel’s ordeal
of suffering, with both sharing the controlling, compelling narrative of the
twenty-second Psalm, what now follows in Daniel’s story helps to shed a great
deal of light on the response to the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection.

If Jesus has
successfully connected Himself to the story of Daniel, and it seems that He
has, then this does not bode well for those who were directly responsible for
His death. For “The king,” who is positioned as the sovereign ruler
desirous of appointing a “resurrected” Daniel to a place of rule over his
entire kingdom (with all of the connections to the kingdom-related desires of
the God of Israel and His messiah that are implied and which would have been
well understood in Jesus’ day), “gave another order, and those men who had
maliciously accused Daniel were brought and thrown into the lions’ den---they,
their children, and their wives. They did not even reach the bottom of
the den before the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones”
(6:24).

With such a fate in
mind, there is little wonder that the chief priests and elders began telling
the story that “His disciples came at night and stole His body” (Matthew
28:13b). It is not difficult to understand why these same men would later
order the disciples “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (Acts
4:18b), and later reminded the disciples of this order, saying “We gave you
strict orders not to teach in this name” (5:28a). The words that
immediately follow the reminder of the order draw direct attention to the men
that were cast into the lion’s den, as well as the shouts of the people upon
Pilate’s washing of his hands, as they said, “Look, you have filled Jerusalem
with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!”
(5:28b)

When one considers
that the story of Daniel, for a number of reasons, was so incredibly important
and significant to the Jews of the first century, and that Jesus had so well
seized upon that fact (especially during the whole of His ordeal), it makes
sense that those who stood to find themselves identified with Daniel’s accusers
(and therefore identified with those thrown to the lions) so furious with and
desirous of executing (Acts 5:33) those who said things like (noting the
parallels with Daniel) “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you
seized and killed by hanging Him on a tree. God exalted Him to His right
hand as Leader and Savior” (5:30-31a). Anyone who found him or herself in
that position would be just as unwilling to allow this story to be told.

Ultimately, as was
said of Daniel’s God by Darius, as he is said to have echoed what was previously
set forth by the Psalmist, would be said of Jesus and His God, by the church,
with this communicated to what would eventually be all believers by the Apostle
Paul. Jesus experienced and overcame His own den of lions, and (noting
the parallels with Daniel) “As a result God exalted Him and gave Him the Name
that is above every name, so that at the Name of Jesus every knee will bow---in
heaven and on earth and under the earth---and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Upon opening the lion’s
den and expectantly calling out into the darkness, the very first words that
Darius is said to have heard from Daniel were “O king, live forever!”
(6:21b) This was followed by Daniel’s report about the angel, the lion’s mouths,
and a lack of harm to come to him. To this Daniel added, by way of
explanation, that he had not suffered the expected demise “because I was found
to be innocent before him. Nor have I done any harm to you, O king”
(6:22b).

With this, Daniel has
confirmed the king’s Psalm-inspired inquiry, effectively answering the Psalmist’s
pleading words in regards to the lions from the verse previously quoted, with
more of the Psalmist’s words, which were “You have answered me” (22:21c).
As the Psalm continues to play out here in the Daniel story, when Daniel speaks
to the king and says “live forever,” the Psalmist can almost be heard saying
“Let those who seek His help praise the Lord! May You live forever!”
(22:26b). When Daniel speaks of not having done any harm to the king, the
Psalmist can be heard declaring: “You loyal followers of the Lord, praise Him!”
(22:23a).

Following Daniel’s
Psalm-ic declaration, the king is obviously and demonstrably thrilled. The
author reports that “the king was delighted and gave an order to haul Daniel up
from the den. So Daniel was hauled up out of the den. He had no
injury of any kind, because he had trusted in his God” (6:23). Here one remembers
that one of the first similarities that could be observed between the stories
of Daniel and Jesus was that Darius had intended to appoint Daniel over his
entire kingdom. This, of course, was also the Creator God’s intention for
His messiah, who was to be appointed over the kingdom of heaven on earth.

So Darius, in
essence, gets to play multiple roles, which assists in explaining why it is
that he does not disappear from the tale of Daniel’s suffering to vindication
in the way that Pilate disappears from the story of Jesus’ suffering to
vindication. Because of the desire to bequeath dominion over a kingdom,
Darius, in the context of the analogy and in the telling of Daniel’s being
pulled from what was to be his tomb, is here positioned in the role that would
be taken up by the Creator, covenant God of Israel in relation to His messiah.

What is here said in
the story of Daniel, not surprisingly, is also to be said of the story of
Jesus. Darius was delighted and he gave an order for Daniel to be hauled
up out of the pit of death into which he had been sent. This is what the God
of Israel would also do for Jesus, who is said to be the Son in whom He
delighted. Not only did Darius give the order, but Darius also had the
power to execute the order, thus Daniel was taken out of the den.
Naturally, the Creator of the cosmos had the power to pull Jesus up out of
death and the grave as well, and so He was.

It is written that
Daniel had no injury of any kind, and this because the lions’ mouths had been
closed. Jesus, of course, had been subjected to a terrifyingly painful
and shameful ordeal, in which He suffered torment and grave injuries that ultimately
resulted in death. However, when He came forth from the grave, apart from
the marks of the nails in His hands and feet (preserved for some reason), it
appeared as if He had been subject to no injuries. Why was this?
Had the lion’s mouths been closed? Well, if one was to think of His
accusers and opponents as the lions, then they were most certainly not
closed. However, if one consider those men to have been little more than
the physical manifestations and pawns of the lion of man’s ultimate enemy, that
being death, then yes, the lion’s mouth had been closed.

Friday, October 25, 2013

The record of Daniel
presents King Darius as being supremely vexed by the whole situation. Concordantly, it is said that “the king,”
after sealing Daniel to his doom, “departed to his palace. But he spent
the night without eating, and no diversions were brought to him. He was
unable to sleep” (6:18). One is left only to wonder if the same could be
said of Pilate after presiding over Jesus’ trial and sending him off to His
death. It is a remarkable feature of the book of Daniel, and of this
story of Daniel and the lion’s den, that Darius is never criticized or
condemned for the role that he played. Such is a remarkable feature of
the Gospels and their accounts of Pilate, in that the authors do not treat him
harshly in their assorted tellings of the story.

Though Pilate
disappears from the New Testament scene following the Christ-event, this is not
to be said of Darius. After his fitful and troubling night, the reader
learns that “In the morning, at the earliest sign of daylight, the king got up
and rushed to the lion’s den” (6:19). There is an interesting measure of
hopeful trust on display in this action by Darius. By this, he appears to
have taken quite seriously whatever it is (likely the twenty-second Psalm, as
previously discussed) that Daniel had said leading up to his being deposited
into the den of lions.

Honestly, why else
would the king be rushing to the lion’s den?
What was he expecting? It is
unlikely that any had ever survived that particular ordeal---it is akin to the
disciples rushing to the tomb upon hearing the reports of its being empty and
that Jesus was alive. The stark and
obvious contrast however, is that the disciples did not rush to Jesus’ tomb of
their own accord, and those that had previously visited the tomb did not do so
with any expectation of a Resurrection.
They knew that Jesus was dead.
They had seen it happen. This speaks
well of the Persian king.

Strangely, at least
as it would sound in the ears of the king’s attendants, “As he approached the
den, he called out to Daniel in a worried voice” (6:20a). So not only has
the king rushed to the lion’s den, but now, for some reason, he is calling out
to the man that has been tossed into that place only to experience the certain
death that has overcome every other person ever relegated to that place. Is this not odd? Is this not what is
being done by those that call out to Jesus? Indeed, it does seem to be
the case that those that call out to Jesus are in fact calling out to one that
was presumed to be dead, with that calling out based upon a hopeful trust in
the God that is called upon and referenced as a God that delivers. Darius
is indeed cast as an instructive and sympathetic figure in this drama.

Darius called out to
Daniel and said, “Daniel, servant of the living God, was your God whom you
continually serve able to rescue you from the lions?” (6:20b) Here,
reinforcing a guiding premise of this study, Darius essentially quotes Psalm
22:21, in which the Psalmist has implored the Creator God of Israel to “Rescue
me from the mouth of the lion” (22:21a). Those that hear this story go on
to learn that “Daniel spoke to the king” (6:21a).

Can one not imagine
what was felt by Darius upon hearing the voice of Daniel? Darius knows
that he, through agreeing to a careless and somewhat conceited course of action
had, by any reasonable consideration, brought death to the man who was his most
highly trusted adviser. Now, he is hearing Daniel speak. The one
whom Darius had sent to death has been, almost before his very eyes, raised up
to life. This is nothing short of a virtual resurrection, though it becomes
known from the report of Daniel’s own words that “God sent His angel and closed
the lion’s mouths so that they have not harmed me” (6:22a), so there has been
no actual death and resurrection here.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Just as a stone had
been placed and sealed over what was to be Daniel’s tomb, so too was a stone
placed and sealed over the tomb of Jesus. If Daniel had indeed spoken the
twenty-second Psalm in the ears of all who were there to hear him, which is a
reasonable proposition to believe, then Daniel spoke of something akin to a
resurrection---and Daniel did is said to have indeed come out of that which had
been intended to be his tomb, unscathed by the lions.

Jesus’ reference to
the same Psalm, coupled with His own talk of rising again, together with His
references to Daniel and the “Son of Man” tradition that it contained, can be
presumed to have caused a bit of worry. The main difference, however, was
that nobody was able to witness the events inside the lion’s den, whereas all
and sundry were able to be witnesses of Jesus’ horrific death. Therefore,
in the minds of the bringers of death, the only way that Jesus could be said to
have risen again was for His disciples to come and steal His body, and simply
lie about why the body had gone missing and why the tomb was now empty.
This is what precipitated the sealing of the tomb. In the case of Darius
and Daniel and the sealing of that tomb, it was likely to have been sealed at
the insistence of the nobles, so that Darius himself, since he had been quite
desperate to spare Daniel, would not come and attempt to retrieve Daniel from
the den.

Is there really a
good reason to believe that Psalm 22 was spoken by Daniel? The Gospels
report that Jesus spoke the words of the Psalm, but could one presume that Daniel
did the same? Is there any evidence that such a thing took place? To
that end, it is to be noted that, following from his suffering and his
vindication and his declaration of praises, the Psalmist goes on to say “Let
all the people of the earth acknowledge the Lord and turn to Him! Let all
the nations worship You! For the Lord is king and rules over the
nations. All of the thriving people of the earth will join the
celebration and worship; all those who are descending into the grave will bow
before Him, including those who cannot preserve their lives. A whole
generation will serve Him; they will tell the next generation about the
sovereign Lord. They will come and tell about His saving deeds; they will
tell a future generation what He has accomplished” (22:27-31). These words
follow talk of help, deliverance, and rescue.

Turning back to
Daniel then, and skipping over the events that are reported (though there shall
be a return to them), it is reported that “King Darius wrote to all the
peoples, nations, and language groups who were living in all the land: ‘Peace
and prosperity! I have issued an edict that throughout all the dominion
of my kingdom people are to revere and fear the God of Daniel. “For He is
the living God; He endures forever. His kingdom will not be destroyed;
His authority is forever. He rescues and delivers and performs signs and
wonders in the heavens and on the earth. He has rescued Daniel from the
power of lions!”’” (6:25-27) Here, the words of the Psalmist and of
Darius are astonishingly
similar.

For all practical
purposes, when Daniel was placed in the den of lions, death was his lot.
There was to be no escape. In reality,
there could be no escape. His fate was to be the same as that of
Jesus---and that fate was death. Though Daniel did not succumb to the
limits of mortality, as did Jesus, and though a hopefulness for deliverance was
expressed by Darius, it is appropriate to suggest that Daniel, when sealed into
the lion’s den, had been overtaken by death. One can be assured that his
opponents celebrated a great victory, confident that they had done away with
one that had been oh so troubling to their plans for power and authority.
Certainly, Jesus’ opponents celebrated in a similar fashion and for similar
reasons.

Now, returning to the
issue of what it was that Darius said to Daniel, it is worth asking again why
it was that Darius said what he said. It would seem to make a great deal
of sense that Daniel, who was being threatened with the lion’s den, would have
quoted this Psalm to Darius, with Darius quite easily able to make the
connection (based on a review of the Psalm to this point) between the words of
the Psalm and what it was that he knew Daniel was going to be experiencing.
After the Psalmist speaks of his horrific plight, and his being set in the dust
of death amidst lions and wild dogs, while indicating that death was
inescapable (the Psalmist speaking of a state of exile, in strong Israelite
tradition), there comes a change of tone.

After the Psalmist
considers himself dead, which is indicated by the fact that “They were dividing
up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments” (22:18),
as dead men need no clothes, he speaks of deliverance. The Psalmist
speaks and says “But you, O Lord, do not remain far away! You are my
source of strength! Hurry and help me! Deliver me from the
sword! Save my life…! Rescue me…! (using Israel’s familiar exodus
language) You have answered me!” (22:19-21)

It is in the wake of
this that the Psalmist insists that he “will declare Your Name to my
countrymen! In the middle of the assembly I will praise You!”
(22:22) Could this be why Darius says to Daniel that “Your God whom you
continually serve will rescue you,” as he was somehow and in some way expecting
Daniel to be preserved? If Daniel has cast himself in the role of the
Psalmist that is now experiencing this misfortune, which would not be terribly
difficult considering the nature of the ordeal (den of lions), then it is not a
stretch in the least little bit to presume that Daniel made this Psalm known to
Darius and to all who were responsible for this attempt on his life, as did
Jesus.

Not only could Daniel
have spoken the words of the Psalm in the ears of Darius, but like Jesus, he could
also have offered these words to the ears of all of his accusers as well.
Darius then, could have heard and responded to what could be believed to be
Daniel’s strange choice of words, which spoke of help, deliverance, rescue, and
answering that would enable him to declare the Name and praises of his God
following the ordeal. Naturally, the others could have responded to the
words as well. So upon Daniel’s having been thrown into the den of lions,
and subsequent to the king’s reassuring words to him (spurred by Daniel’s
faithful referencing to a song of His people), “a stone was brought and placed
over the opening to the den. The king sealed it with his signet ring and
with those of his nobles so that nothing could be changed with regard to
Daniel” (6:17). This should quickly put one in mind of Matthew’s reports
of what followed Jesus’ death (surrounded by “dogs” and “lions,” with His
allusions to Psalm 22), after Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body of Jesus
and placed it in his own tomb.

Matthew reports that
“The next day (which is after the day of preparation) the chief priests and the
Pharisees assembled before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember that while that
deceiver was still alive He said, “After three days I will rise again.”
So give orders to secure the tomb until the third day. Otherwise His
disciples may come and steal His body and say to the people, “He has been
raised from the dead,” and the last deception will be worse than the
first.’ Pilate said to them, ‘Take a guard of soldiers. Go and make
it as secure as you can.’ So they went with the soldiers of the guard and
made the tomb entrance secure by sealing the stone” (Matthew 27:62-66). According
to the Gospel records, Jesus had indeed spoken of rising again after three days. Along with that, His recent reference to the
twenty-second Psalm (while on the cross) in an atmosphere in which there was a great
awareness of the book of Daniel, as well as a constant looking forward to a
Davidic king not unlike the king that had been said to have spoken that great
Psalm, would have induced this exchange between Pilate and those responsible
for Jesus’ own journey into the metaphorical lion’s den that was crucifixion
and death.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

When all efforts at
recourse had been attempted and spent, Darius was forced to relent. “So
the king gave the order, and Daniel was brought and thrown into a den of lions”
(Daniel 6:16a). Surely, this was going to be a horrible fate.
Though the Persians engaged in the practice of crucifixion, it was not of the
type that was practiced by the Romans. This manner of punishment could well
be considered to be the crucifixion of the day.
It was certainly a dramatic method of shaming, as was crucifixion.

Before being delivered
over to what was understood to be his certain death, “The king consoled Daniel
by saying, ‘Your God whom you continually serve will rescue you!’” (6:16b) It is quite interesting that Darius, a
Persian king, would say such a thing before throwing this Jewish prophet into a
den of lions. Why would he say this? Was he familiar with the
Psalms? Had Daniel, before that point, made reference to the
twenty-second Psalm? If he had, and if this was part of the larger story
of Daniel that was passed through the centuries and told even at Jesus’ day,
then it makes for an even tighter analogy between Daniel and Jesus, as one considers
the situation in which the one that is crying out to the Creator God finds
himself.

Naturally, when the
Psalmist references “a roaring lion that rips its prey” (22:13a), pleads that
his God will “Rescue me from the mouth of the lion” (22:21a), and speaks of “a
gang of evil men” that “crowd around me,” and “like a lion they pin my hands
and feet” (22:16b), the tighter connection goes beyond the simple reference to
lions in this Psalm, Though this is quite the shining example of a
connection between the ordeals of Daniel and Jesus, that is not the limit of
the link. When Jesus cries out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have
You abandoned Me?” (22:1a), He is not merely quoting a single verse, but
rather, in the established rabbinic tradition, and in the tradition of the
teachers of Israel, He is drawing attention and calling to mind an entire
narrative. Jesus, again in strong rabbinic tradition, together with the
Gospel author, wants the entire Psalm, as well as any particular stories that
are linked to that Psalm, told with reference to that Psalm and given context
by that Psalm.

The story of Daniel
would be one of those stories that would likely have come to be inextricably
linked with this Psalm. So when the people, and especially the leaders of
the people that bear the responsibility for His death, hear this cry from
Jesus, they will recall the whole of the Psalm. They will consider the
Psalmist’s reference to lions, and the story of Daniel in the lion’s den (with
Daniel so popular and well known in the day) will immediately come to
mind. Jesus would be here be linking His plight with that of Daniel,
making His previous references to the seventh chapter of Daniel, and His
reference to the Son of Man (and by extension the beast that is doing battle
against the saints of the Most High, and the Ancient of Days, and the kingdom
given to the Son of Man, and the four hundred ninety year period of Daniel’s
prophecy) as He stood before the High Priest, even more telling.

The words of this
Psalm can easily be put into the mouths of both Daniel and Jesus. Both
groaned in prayer (22:1b), cried out to God (22:2a), relied upon the promises
given to Israel and its ancestors, (22:4), trusted upon their God’s power to
perform according to those promises (22:5), were insulted and despised by their
adversaries (22:6), experienced taunting and mocking (22:7), given up to the
salvation of their God as a test of His power and their truthfulness (22:8),
hemmed in by the powerful (22:12), devoured with words (22:13a), set in the
dust of death (22:15b), and experienced the gloating of their enemies
(22:17b).

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Moving on, again, to
the Gospel of John, the picture here painted is even more fascinatingly
interesting than that which is found in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke). As was seen with Daniel, and as was able to be seen a bit more
explicitly with Luke, an even more poignant reference to kingly power is found
here in John. After reading here about Pilate’s attempts to release
Jesus, the voices of the Jewish leaders are heard shouting “If you release this
man, you are no friend of Caesar! Everyone who claims to be a king
opposes Caesar!” (19:12b) This represents quite an interesting turn of
events. It is unlikely that Pilate has ever heard such words escape the
lips of a leader of the Jews, and almost certainly not as a means to justify
the putting to death of one of their own people.

Surely, by this point
Pilate had been able to gather more information about Jesus. If this had
been the case, he would have learned that Jesus had been hailed as a teacher
and a healer and a worker of miracles. He may have even now been made
aware of the raising of Lazarus and the crowds that had gathered to see Jesus
(and Lazarus---this story is recorded only in the Gospel of John) when He had
entered Jerusalem riding the back of a donkey, to what had been the approving
shouts of acclimation from the assembled masses. Learning these things,
Pilate would then be left to wonder to where those crowds had disappeared, as he
now only hears the fellow countrymen of the accused---this one who had done
such marvelous things for so many people---pressing theirs and Pilate’s loyalty
to Caesar and to his rule as grounds for enacting the dishonorable death by
crucifixion.

It stands to reason
that Pilate, with his experience of governing Judea and the constant subversive
undercurrent that flowed among his subjects, would have to have been perplexed
by this appeal to Rome’s rule, especially when the initial shouts of “Crucify
Him! Crucify Him!” (19:6) were accompanied by an appeal to a different
basis for execution, when it was said that “We have a law, and according to our
law He ought to die, because He claimed to be the Son of God!” (19:7)
When the appeal to their own law was ineffective in swaying Pilate, they
changed course and appealed to Pilate’s desire to have security in his position
(“friend of Caesar”), adding an appeal to Roman law and that which was required
for those who attempt to usurp Caesar’s absolute power.

This would not be
lost on Pilate. Seeing that he could do
nothing to change the minds of these people and that he would be unable to
secure Jesus’ release (which was odd to say the least---a Roman governor
attempting to free a wonder-working Jewish holy man, but unable to do so
because releasing Him to His own people would start a riot, thereby
jeopardizing his own position within Rome’s power structure, as he would be
seen as incapable of ruling this small province), Pilate seized on this
opportunity to bring these leaders of the people in line and humiliate them
because of what they were doing. He
would do this with their very own words, as after hearing them speak of being a
friend of Caesar and about opposition to Caesar, Pilate set the prisoner before
the people and said “Look, here is your king!” (19:14b) To this
assertion, the ultimate reply made by the Jewish leaders was “We have no king
but Caesar!” (19:15b). This would have been an amazing turn of events
indeed.

The cry of these
people, for years on end as they looked for a king in the line of David who
would usher in the glorious kingdom of their God, free Israel from its
oppressors, and end the long night of subjection to one foreign ruler after
another---had been “No king but God!” Lives had been lain down for this
claim. Their history was replete with the stories of men and women and
children that had been brutally and mercilessly tortured because of this
claim. Now, the very one that claimed to be their king and to be the one
for which they had been waiting, as their God had finally entered into history,
once again, to act on behalf of His people and to establish His kingdom and who
embodied the claim of “No king but God!”, was going to be sent to a brutal
torture and a merciless cross. This would
take place in the falling echoes of His people’s claim that they had “no king
except Caesar!”

Monday, October 21, 2013

When one moves on to
Luke, and as one considers that which clinched the argument for Daniel’s foes
(“Recall, O king…), the chief priests and elders can be found making a more
explicit reference to Jesus’ challenge to the power of the king.
Remember, Luke reports Jesus’ foes saying that Jesus was forbidding the people
to pay the tribute tax to Caesar and claiming kingship for Himself (Luke
23:1-2), which carries an implicit claim that Caesar’s rule is
irrelevant. To this they added that “He incites the people by teaching
throughout all Judea” (23:5a).

This “inciting” of
the people, in the ears of the Roman governor, would have caused him to make an
inference in the area of “revolution”. Knowing
the history and expectations of these people over which he ruled, such words would
have been quite troubling, as it was a charge that was taken seriously by Rome’s
provincial rulers. It was at this point that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod,
who then returns Jesus to Pilate, which subsequently finds Pilate desirous of
securing Jesus’ release after a flogging.

The implications are
that there was nothing to the charges being leveled against Jesus. The people, however, who are actually being
incited by those that sought to bring about the death of Jesus (asserting
themselves in a way that was an ironic rejection of Caesar’s rule), reject
Pilate’s proposal. Pilate, undaunted, “addressed them once again because
he wanted to release Jesus” (23:20). Interestingly,
it is the continued pursuit of Jesus’ execution as a state criminal, with this
after neither Pilate nor Herod could find substantiation for such the claims
being made against Him, serve to make Caesar’s rule irrelevant.

At this, the Gospel
author reports that the shouts of the crowd had begun to include an insistence
to “Crucify, crucify Him!” (23:21b) Pilate had already reasoned that
crucifixion---that horrible and ignominious death that is reserved for
recalcitrant slaves and openly rebellious subjects---was not something that was
deserved by this Jesus, who, apart from affirming that He was the king of the
Jews (with no obvious evidence to support this claim---no circumstantial evidence,
nor any followers attempting to intervene on His behalf, whether through
violent or non-violent means), had not entered into actions that would make it
incumbent upon Pilate to pass such a sentence.

So Pilate, in an
exasperated plea that must be somewhat reminiscent of King Darius, says “Why?
What wrong has He done? I have found Him guilty of no crime deserving
death. I will therefore flog Him and release Him” (23:22). As it
was for Jesus, so it had been for Daniel. Darius clearly had no desire to
see Daniel suffer the horrific punishment of a state criminal---being put to
death in the den of lions, and Pilate had no desire to see this come upon Jesus
either. He wanted this to be clear to all, so returning briefly to
Matthew (viewing the story through the lenses of the collected Gospel records,
as it is likely that all of the authors had been heavily influenced by the
Daniel story), as he saw that “a riot was starting, he took some water, washed
his hands before the crowd and said, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood.
You take care of it yourselves!’” (27:24b)

Sunday, October 20, 2013

As far as Pilate was
concerned, and based on what was sure to have been the experience of provincial
governors throughout the empire of Rome, someone making an absolute claim to
kingship would not be standing there completely alone. In addition to that, the accused would more
than likely be calling down judgments upon Rome, making proclamations about his
innocence as he protested the abuses of imperial power and the illegitimacy of
Rome’s rule. According to the accumulated record of these events, Jesus
did none of these things. He is said to have answered simply and
briefly.

What would have made
this scene all the more amazing to Pilate was that in the midst of all of this,
Jesus was being “accused by the chief priests and the elders,” but “He did not
respond” (Matthew 27:12). Pilate, seeming to be (and probably) utterly
perplexed by this, says “Don’t you hear how many charges they are bringing
against you?” (27:13) Jesus, however, “did not answer even one
accusation” (27:14a), and summing up the entirety of the situation in which he
found himself, Matthew adds to his narrative concerning the most important
event in all of human history that “the governor was quite amazed”
(27:14b). Apparently, Jesus acted in a way quite unlike anyone Pilate had
ever encountered.

Returning then to the
book of Daniel, and in contrast to Jesus’ experience, one does not there find a
trial. It is conspicuous by its
absence. In consideration of that fact, it could be said that Daniel was
as quiet and as reserved as was Jesus, with Jesus taking up a Daniel-like
posture as He endured the circumstances to which His life and mission had
come. If the Biblical narrative holds true to form, it is likely that
Daniel offered no particular defense. If Darius would have asked him if
the accusations that were being made against him were true, it is probable that
Daniel would have said something like “You say so.”

One can easily
picture the scene in which the satraps and the governors and the other
supervisors of the kingdom were making these accusations as Daniel stood before
Darius, with Darius saying “Don’t you hear how many charges they are bringing
against you?” Daniel, providing the fore-running example through the
presumed strange silence in this area, in which a trial (if there was one) goes
unreported, would most likely have not answered even one accusation, so that
the king would have been quite amazed.

A bit further on in
Matthew, it is reported that Pilate “knew that they had handed Him (Jesus) over
because of envy” (27:18). This is an
important social consideration in the honor and shame culture, and goes further
than simple jealousy. Based on the
presentation of Darius, one can be assured that the Persian king knew this to
be true of those that were handing Daniel over to him. Such would have
been grounds for an additional objection that could have been raised and
pointed out by both Daniel and Jesus, but the records demonstrate that they
were not.

Daniel knew that the
ordeal would be difficult, but he also knew that the authority of a kingdom was
coming to him (because Darius wished to appoint Daniel over his entire
kingdom---6:3b). Likewise, Jesus knew that the ordeal to which He was
then being subjected and which was going to get far worse in the hours to come,
would be extraordinarily difficult.
However, He also trusted that it was a path that required traversing
because of His hopes that the authority of a kingdom was coming to Him as
well.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Both Darius and
Pilate share a common approbation within the Scriptural narrative, in that they
diligently sought for a way to release the men whose lives and fates were
placed in their power, with both unable to find good reason why the accused
should be sent to their deaths. As was said, their efforts ultimately
proved to be futile. After Darius failed to stumble upon a reasonable
solution, the presumed jealousy and bloodlust of Daniel’s adversaries made
itself manifest, as “those men came by collusion to the king and said to him,
‘Recall, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no edict or
decree that the king issues can be changed.’” (Daniel 6:15) Yet again,
the congruence of this event with that which was experienced by Jesus is
striking.

Bearing in mind the
accusation of ignoring the king and his edicts that had been effectively
leveled against both Daniel and Jesus (by their respective accusers), and
therefore the creation of a dynamic which has both Daniel and Jesus positioning
themselves as somehow not subject to the rule and authority of the king, the
observer can turn to Matthew’s record of the encounter between ruler and ruled
and find Pilate ironically asking Jesus “Are you the king of the Jews?”
(27:11b)

If Jesus was to
answer in an obvious affirmative, then Pilate would have then had an undeniable
(and for Pilate’s purposes, unfortunate) reason to send Him to His death as a
rebellious subject that had brought the punishment for sedition and treason
upon Himself. A “yes” would mean that Jesus was challenging the
legitimate rule of Rome, which, combined with the fact of the crowds and the
accusations themselves, would have been highly charged rhetoric in the Israel
of Jesus’ day, and it would have demanded a crucifixion-shaped response.

Thinking of Darius’
situation and the words of “Recall, O king…” in reference to his laws, can these
men be heard basically asking Darius, albeit with great subtlety, “So are you
king or are you not the king”? Pilate, of course, stands as proxy for
Rome and for the Caesar, and the question he puts to Jesus is stirred by those
seeking to put Jesus to death. Without
their efforts, it is unlikely that Jesus would have caught the attention of the
governor. For all practical purposes, as the stories of Daniel and Jesus
are compared (and it is difficult to overstate how much influence the Daniel
narrative had in that day) Jesus’ enemies have come to Pilate, who is the
representative of the power of Rome, and said “Recall, O king, that it is a law
that anyone who claims kingship, in defiance of Caesar, must be handed over to
death.”

To Pilate’s query,
Jesus responded, “You say so” (27:11c). This was not Jesus simply being
evasive. Rather, this stands as an
affirmation, as this was a common way of saying “yes.” Normally, this
would have been sufficient to warrant crucifixion, but under normal circumstances
a man would not be standing before Pilate, with such vehement accusations being
flung against him, without some type of revolutionary, blood-shedding event precipitating
the encounter. Not only would the accused be on trial before Pilate, but
there would more than likely be dead Roman soldiers and wounded citizens, along
with dead followers of the one on trial, with more of his followers also in
custody and waiting to learn the fate of their leader whose fate they would
share.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Undoubtedly, Darius
would have been surprised to hear accusations of subversion concerning Daniel,
and would have been likely to respond with some measure of incredulity. Similarly,
if this were true of Jesus, Pilate, in his collusion with the temple
authorities (particularly the Sadducees), would probably have heard something
along these lines (a person claiming to be king, instructing people to not pay
taxes to Rome) prior to this point. So it could safely be said that
Pilate regarded the accusation against Jesus with a measure of incredulity as
well. Things of this nature, which would require the attention of the
governor, didn’t just happen overnight or occur under a rock. They build
over time and eventually reach a boiling point that would require some type of
intervention by Rome.

If this issue with
Jesus was now at the point of Roman intervention, then it stands to reason that
Pilate is going to have some familiarity with the charges that are being
brought against Jesus. Contrary to this expectation, the cumulative
Gospel record paints a picture of a governor that is fully unaware of the man
that is being placed before him, and the subversion of which He is being
accused. To this end, the Gospel of John has these men saying, about
Jesus, in response to Pilate’s question of “What accusation to you bring
against this man?” (18:29b), “If this man were not a criminal, we would not
have handed him over to you” (18:30b).

When it came to
Daniel, “When the king heard about this, he was very upset and began thinking
about how he might rescue Daniel. Until late afternoon he was struggling
to find a way to rescue him” (6:14). This is a regular echo of the Gospel
accounts. In Matthew, it is reported that Pilate’s “wife sent a message
to him: ‘Have nothing to do with that innocent man…’” (27:19b) In Luke,
“Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, ‘I find no basis for an
accusation against this man.’” (23:4b)

Pilate, as he plays a
Darius-like role, would even send Jesus to King Herod in order to see if Rome’s
puppet-king would intervene on behalf of Jesus so as to spare Pilate from
having to take further action. The Gospels
acquit Pilate to an extent, reporting that after Jesus returns from Herod,
“Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said
to them, ‘You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people.
When I examined Him before you, I did not find this man guilty of anything you
accused Him of doing. Neither did Herod, for he sent Him back to
us. Look, He has done nothing deserving death.’” (23:13-15)

Going on to the
Gospel of John, Pilate’s actions are there also reported to be quite similar to
those of King Darius, looking for a way to spare the accused, as he questions
Jesus and eventually says “I find no basis for an accusation against Him”
(18:38b). He repeats these words (“I find no reason for an accusation
against Him” – 19:4b) after having Jesus flogged, seemingly hoping that this
will satisfy those who have brought Jesus before him. Again, a third
time, against the protests of the chief priests, as they stirred up the crowds,
Pilate says “Certainly I find no reason for an accusation against Him” (19:6b).

The Gospel writer
appears to be emphatic (perhaps owing to the charges of overt sedition that
were regularly leveled against Christians in the late first century when the
Gospel of John is thought to have been composed), insisting on demonstrating
that “Pilate tried to release Him” (19:12), exploring every possible option
that was available to him, much like Darius struggled to find a way to rescue
Daniel from the fate of the den of lions. Their efforts, of course, were
to no avail.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

With such knowledge
concerning Jesus’ practices and habits in hand, “Judas obtained a squad of
soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. They came
to the orchard with lanterns and torches and weapons” (John 18:3). In the
case of Daniel, this scene can be read as “Then those officials who had gone to
the king came by collusion and found Daniel praying and asking for help before
his God” (6:11). This stands as a stark reminder of what it was that had been
Jesus’ plaintive prayer (here mixing Gospel records), as He prayed and asked
for help in the time of testing that was coming to Him, saying “My Father, if
possible, let this cup pass from Me! Yet not what I will, but what you
will… My Father, if this cup cannot be taken away unless I drink it, Your
will must be done” (Matthew 26:39b, 42b).

To this plea, some
manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke (again, mixing Gospel records as part of this
analogical contrasting of Daniel and Jesus) add that “an angel from heaven
appeared to Him and strengthened Him” (Luke 22:43). This should immediately draw one’s attention
to the words of Daniel, in the wake of his night spent in the den of lions, as
he insisted that “My God sent His angel and closed the lions’ mouths so that
they have not harmed me, because I was found to be innocent before Him”
(6:22a). To these words, a return visit shall be paid. Owing to the heavy influence of the Daniel
story in the time of Jesus, along with the reliance on knowledge of that story
and Danielic imagery in the records of the words of Jesus (especially Son of
Man language and the thoughts associated therewith), it is unsurprising to hear
further echoes of Daniel on the lips of Jesus.

After observing
Daniel in his practice of continuing to pray---continuing, without fail, in the
ministry to which he had been appointed by Israel’s faithful God, the men who
would have Daniel done away with “approached the king and said to him, ‘Did you
not an issue an edict to the effect that for the next thirty days anyone who
prays to any god or human other than to you, O king, would be thrown into a den
of lions?’” (Daniel 6:12a) This serves to remind an observer that, in
Jesus’ day, the Roman emperor was the focal point of a large and increasingly popular
religious cult, whose purpose (among others) was to provide a unifying force to
a geographically far-flung, as well as ethnically and culturally and
religiously diverse empire. The Roman emperor was recognized as a divine
being (the son of god), which is not unlike the movement seen in Daniel, with
prayers to be directed solely to the ruler of the world empire that then held
sway.

To the obviously loaded
and leading query from his officials “The king replied, ‘That is correct,
according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be changed.’”
(6:12b) Knowing that they had successfully been able to lead the king
down the path that they so desired---leading him into a corner in which he
would be forced to acquiesce to their scheming, the presumably jealous
officials seized upon this re-confirmation of the king’s decree and said to
him, “Daniel, who is one of the captives from Judah, pays no attention to you,
O king, or to the edict that you issued. Three times daily he offers his
prayer” (6:13). Before drawing the necessary analogy, it should be noted
that they do not simply tell the king that Daniel is ignoring the edict, but
rather, they first say that Daniel pays no attention to the king. Though
the second accusation was entirely true, the first was patently false.

The goings-on here
now enable a return to Jesus being brought before Pilate. In Luke’s
Gospel, Jesus’ accusers, after taking Him from His place of prayer (where, it
is not to be forgotten, He prayed three on three distinct occasions, probably
facing Jerusalem), “rose up and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began
to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us
to pay tribute tax to Caesar and claiming that He Himself is Christ, a king”
(23:1b-2). If one was so inclined to hear it, this sounds remarkably like
the accusation that Daniel paid no attention to the king or to his edicts.
Jesus was, in a sense, subverting the nation, at least in terms of the national
aspirations towards militaristic overthrow of Rome, so this part of the
accusation was true. The second part, indicating that Jesus was
attempting to subvert Rome (paying no attention to the king) by forbidding the
people to pay taxes, was not true.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Daniel knew that
there were lions waiting to devour him if he violated the satrap and governor
induced order of the king of Babylon. However, he continued to ply the
course on which he had been set, and is said to have continued praying openly
and without shame, as he always had done. Daniel is shown to have
continued in steadfast faithfulness to the God that he understood to have
chosen him and specifically appointed him, that had apparently used him over
and over, that had preserved his life, that had raised him up to a position of
power and prestige, and had put him in the place where he had much to lose by
continuing to walk the path of a prayerful trust in his God. If one was to
read these last few lines again, would it not be possible to simply replace
“Daniel” with “Jesus”?

As was said before, as
far as the story is concerned, Daniel did not make any attempts at persuading
the king to change the order or to issue a new decree. Daniel did not
attempt to foment a rebellion to overthrow the king and install himself as
king, which he might very well have been able to do. No. This was not the path. Instead, he placed
his trust in the faithful, covenant God of Israel, to provide him with
salvation (deliverance, exodus), regardless of what might occur.

The same can be said
for Jesus, when faced with what was, in essence, the same situation. Both
Daniel and Jesus would move forward with a confident reliance upon promises
granted and outcomes implied. Daniel continued to travel the route on to
which he had been placed by his God, which had brought him to the position in
which he now found himself, which had caused him to be hated by some, and which
had caused his enemies to want to destroy him. The life of Jesus echoes
in these statements, through and through.

What, specifically,
was Daniel’s response to learning what his adversaries had planned to entrap
him? “When Daniel realized that a written decree had been issued, he
entered his home, where the windows in his upper room opened toward
Jerusalem. Three times daily he was kneeling and offering prayers and
thanks to his God just as he had been accustomed to do previously” (Daniel 6:10).
From this point, the analogies to Jesus present themselves in rapid fire
succession.

It is reported that
Daniel prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, and that he did so three times
each day. The men who stood against Daniel, and who wanted to destroy
him, would have possessed the knowledge that Daniel did this. The story would seem to imply that they were
counting on the fact that Daniel would continue in his customary practice, and
that he would not hide himself in his praying, even with the deadly decree
having been issued against him. What can be said in analogy to Jesus in
this regard?

Well, His betrayal
took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, which was just across the Kidron
Valley, opposite the eastern walls of Jerusalem. The record of Jesus’ activity in that garden
is that He went off by Himself, on three individual occasions, to pray. It
is not difficult to imagine that He prayed, like Daniel, facing Jerusalem; and
the fact of three prayers playing a part in both stories cannot be written off
as mere coincidence. In addition, just as Daniel’s opponents knew that he
openly prayed in the manner that is reported, the Gospel of John reports that
“Judas, the one who betrayed Him (Jesus), knew the place too, because Jesus had
met there many times with His disciples” (John 18:2).

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Before moving
forward, it’s appropriate to put some flesh and blood on this story. For
all practical purposes, the story of Daniel asks the readers to understand that
Daniel has effectively become the second most powerful man in the
empire. He knew his position.
Similarly, it can be suggested that Jesus, in all likelihood knew (based
on the events of his life, from what He would have been told were the angelic
prophecies of His birth, to His experience at the age of twelve in Jerusalem,
to His baptism, to the miracles that attended His ministry), or at least had a
strong and abiding hope, that He was the Creator God’s Messiah for
Israel.

Daniel, who is
presented as a wise counselor and keen politician, would have been well aware
that Darius desired to make him the ruler of the kingdom. Likewise, if Jesus strongly believed Himself
to be the Messiah (to the point that He presents Himself as a messiah-figure,
while, according to the Gospel accounts of His life, also used messianic
titles, imagery, and language in reference to Himself), then He also strongly
believed that He was the one that was to be appointed as King of the coming
kingdom of God. Indeed, Jesus seems to be in a state of almost constant
awareness of what awaits Him at the end of His journey, as He is reported to
have made regular references to the betrayal and suffering and death and
resurrection to which He understood Himself to be headed.

The picture of Jesus
that is presented in the Gospels is one in which He has a complete mastery over
all that eventually happens to Him at the hands of His adversaries, especially
as He lays down His life willingly. So it was with Daniel. In the
narrative that bears his name, Daniel exudes an aura of measured control.
In addition, he was by no means a political novice, as before King Darius comes
on the scene, he is said to have dealt quite well with the great King
Nebuchadnezzar, gaining power and prestige in Babylon in the process.

Both Daniel and Jesus
were astute observers who were well engaged with the machinations of the
political machines of their days. Owing to this, there is very little
chance that Daniel was unaware of what was happening, just as Jesus is shown to
have known what was going on behind the scenes in the corridors of power, owing
to His miracles and His proclamation of the presence of the kingdom of God,
with its inclusion of all and sundry peoples.

Daniel, with the
position that he had attained, could quite easily have stepped in and protested
the decree that had been proposed. Had
he so desired, he could probably have kept it from being made. The same could presumably be said of Jesus,
as when He is arrested in the garden, He speaks of being able to call upon more
than twelve legions of angels to protect Him if that was His desire. It
is easy to imagine that, with the influence and power that he is said to have,
Daniel could very well have commanded the loyalty and affection of some of the
leaders of the king’s army, attempted a coup, started a revolution, and done
any number of things in an attempt to save himself from the repercussions of a
decree that was quite obviously directed at him.

Neither Daniel nor
Jesus chose such a route. Instead, Daniel, just as he had determined to
do from the time he reached Babylon, was going to put the Creator God of Israel
on display. More importantly, he was
going to put the covenant faithfulness of Israel’s God to rescue His people, on
display for all to see. This too was presumably Jesus’ goal, as He
trusted, based on the Scriptural record that was the source of His knowledge of
the Creator God, that the covenant God of Israel was going to fulfill His
covenant for the world (made with Abraham), through Him and through His death
and Resurrection.

Monday, October 14, 2013

When it came to Daniel and those that are reported to be his
adversaries, with jealousy presumed to be the reason for their ugly and unjust disposition
towards him, “they were unable to find any such damaging evidence, because he
was trustworthy and guilty of no negligence or corruption” (6:4b). As
this is found to be true of Daniel, so it is found to be true of Jesus as
well. Though this analysis need not get too far ahead itself, one only
need consider the witnesses at the “trial” of Jesus, who attempted to bring
forth condemning accusations and testimony.

Ultimately, as had been the case with Daniel, their testimony
was found to be lacking, though ultimately those adversaries (in both cases) would
be successful in that the objects of their respective accusations would be
sentenced to death. In the case of Jesus, plans were hatched and attempts
were made to get Him to speak against the Temple, or against the Roman
government, or against the Mosaic Law, but all proved futile. Indeed,
Jesus was trustworthy, and could not be found to be guilty of negligence or
corruption by which he could be challenged or damaged in any way.

Having failed to gather any
credible evidence against Daniel, “these men concluded, ‘We won’t find any
pretext against this man Daniel unless it is in connection with the law of his
God.’” (6:5) Ultimately, this would be the path traveled in the plot to
take down Jesus, with the accusation of blasphemy against Israel’s God. Jesus would be said to have made Himself
equal with the Creator God, and would thereby be subject to the attendant demand
for death associated with a conviction related to that charge. However,
those that sought to bring death to Jesus were not in a position to carry out
that death penalty, so a case had to be made to those who could do so (the
Romans). To that end, Jesus was taken before Pilate.

Before going any
further, it needs to be said that the value in constructs such as the one here
being made is that Jesus, as He (as it would be imagined) diligently searched
the Scriptures and pondered the ultimate validity of the method that He would
employ to bring in the kingdom of God---that being suffering to vindication
(exile to exodus), may have found stories with that theme highly instructive
for the purpose of what He seemed to have believed was His mission.
Stories such as Daniel could very well have provided Him with guidance,
strength, and sustenance for the path that He believed lay ahead of Him. In
this way, He could develop the trust that the God that had been the God of
deliverance for a faithful Israelite such as Daniel, would also be the God of
deliverance for Him as well.

Continuing to explore
this story of Daniel, one finds that “these supervisors and satraps came by
collusion to the king and said to him, ‘O King Darius, live forever!’”
(6:6). After this bit of customary flattery, they continued on and said
“To all the supervisors of the kingdom, the prefects, satraps, counselors, and
governors it seemed like a good idea for a royal edict to be issued and an
interdict to be enforced. For the next thirty days anyone who prays to
any god or human other than you, O king, should be thrown into a den of lions”
(6:7). Finally, to this was added, “Now let the king issue a written
interdict so that it cannot be altered, according to the law of the Medes and
Persians, which cannot be changed” (6:8).

Quite understandably,
as these individuals had successfully appealed to human vanity, “King Darius
issued the written interdict” (6:9).
With this, he has ironically and unwittingly put in jeopardy the life of
the very one that he had intended to appoint over the entire kingdom (a classic
hero tale).

Saturday, October 12, 2013

It seemed like a good idea to Darius to appoint over the
kingdom one hundred twenty satraps who would be in charge of the entire
kingdom. Over them would be three supervisors, one of whom was Daniel. –
Daniel 6:1-2a (NET)

With this, Daniel appears to
have been provided with a tremendous responsibility for a member of the
covenant people of the Creator God. It is written that “These satraps
were accountable to them,” meaning the three supervisors, “so that the king’s
interests might not incur damage” (6:2b). These words, as the Hebrew
Scriptures, post-Resurrection, ask believers to view them through the lens of
the Christ event, allow an observer to make a consideration of the role of
Jesus. That role was to see that His
(God’s) interests, that being the salvation of a people and the restoration of
His creation, might not incur damage. Others had been sent into the world
for this very purpose. In fact, if one was inclined to press the analogy,
it could be said that Jesus was essentially the third of three “supervisors”
that had been appointed to this purpose, with the first being Adam, and the
second being Israel.

As one makes this analogous comparison between Daniel, doing
so in association with the story of Daniel and the lion’s den, while taking the
extremely wide, cosmic view entailed by connecting the two men together, it is
possible to go on to think of the aforementioned one hundred twenty satraps (which
is a technical term for an official in charge of a region of the empire) as the
steady stream of patriarchs, judges, kings, and prophets that had been either
chosen or raised up by the Creator God to be partially responsible for
protecting that King’s interests from incurring damage.

With regard to Daniel, one can go
on to read that he “was distinguishing himself above the other supervisors and
satraps, for he had an extraordinary spirit” (6:3). Again, it is not
difficult to transfer and make the application of these words to Jesus, recalling
the event of His baptism, when “a voice came from heaven” saying “You are My
one dear Son; in you I take great delight” (Mark 1:11). To this
utterance, Matthew would add that the Spirit of the Creator God descended upon
Jesus and came upon Him (Matthew 3:16). It could certainly be said that,
owing to this descent of the Holy Spirit, Jesus possessed an extraordinary
spirit that would enable Him to distinguish Himself above Adam and Israel and
all of the prophets and holy men of the Creator that had come before Him---thus
preserving the King’s interests.

Of Daniel, it is said that “in
fact, the king intended to appoint him over the entire kingdom” (6:3b).
This would be no less true of Jesus, as His God’s apparent intention was to
appoint His Messiah, that being Jesus, over the entirety of the kingdom that He
Himself was establishing on the earth, as He (Israel’s God) personally embodied
the Messiah so as to act in history to inaugurate this kingdom.

It seems clear that Daniel had
great favor with the king, as did Jesus. As a result, “the supervisors
and satraps were trying to find some pretext against Daniel in connection with
administrative matters” (6:4a). On the local (not cosmic) level, because
Daniel’s position of authority along with the will of the king is being
challenged, it becomes possible to view these supervisors and satraps as the
chief priests, elders, scribes, and rulers with whom Jesus, according to the
Gospel accounts, almost incessantly finds himself in conflict. Just as
there was a movement against Daniel in the area of “administrative matters,” so
too was there a movement against Jesus. Here, without taking the time and
space to go into specifics, one can call to mind the numerous attempts that
were made to challenge Jesus and His teaching (in the common battle for honor),
along with the questioning of His authority to do and say the things that He
was doing and saying.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Christians, as the
latest and ongoing iterations of the sons of God (understood according to the
ongoing narrative of the covenant people), are to live with hands outstretched
to the world, in sympathy and compassion, desiring to share the pains and
burdens they encounter, and doing so through the life-animating and life-giving
Gospel (Jesus is Lord) that mysteriously turns hearers into believers and
believers into doers. It is through this group of kingdom people, who
through their manifestation of the power of the Gospel as they live the lives
of sons of the Creator God of Israel, that the kingdom of heaven (the power of
the age to come which had been remarkably demonstrated by the Resurrection of
Jesus) breaks into the present age, and the Creator God works to reverse the
condemnation and cursing that had been brought into this creation and
unfortunately extended by His sons that had come before. Yes, the
covenant God works in and through believers to bring restoration to His Temple
by being His Temple.

If this is understood
rightly, and believers comprehend that they are now the sons of God (as was
Israel) in union with the Christ when they confess the Gospel (which is said to
occur by the power of the Holy Spirit), then they can further understand that
it this open-handed, self-sacrificial, and compassionate church of the Christ
(operating with a living, breathing hope of resurrection and restoration and
renewal---far more than the hope of “going to heaven when they die”) that “is
the way God loved the world.” Yes, it is
the covenant people that is the church, who are those that take part in the
kingdom of the Creator God that was inaugurated with the Resurrection of
Israel’s Messiah, because they/it is recognized as the body of Christ and is
the very present Temple of the Creator God, that is tasked to be “His one and
only Son” in this world. Why is this? “So that everyone who
believes in Him”---which includes a believing acknowledgment of the Creator and
of His glory and of short-fallings in the light of that glory---“will not
perish but have eternal life.”

This eternal life, of
course, is not an escape from this world, but rather an exodus from a life and
condition of exile, understood within the hope of a resurrection to come in a
renewed and regenerated world that has been set right by its Creator. To
that point, history (according to Israel’s defining story which provides
context for Jesus and those that claim allegiance to Him) had seen the Creator God
send His sons into the world, with each one seemingly wreaking more havoc than
the one before. However, “God did not send His Son into the world to
condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:17). This is not about announcing condemnation or
pointing out its/their flaws and failures in the “us versus them” dichotomy of “the
church versus the world”. Rather than
saving the world, Adam, Israel, and Solomon (those recognized as the sons of
God) had brought more condemnation into the world, when the Creator had
intended His sons to be the salvation of the world.

As the sons of God, believes are called to be
the embodiment of the Creator God’s love for the good world that He had created
and in which He desired (and still desires) to dwell. As sons, He sends His
covenant people out on a daily basis (as was true of Adam, Israel, Solomon
prior to the coming of the Christ), under the call of the Lordship of Jesus, to
show forth His glory through a compassionate and sensitive love that is aware
of the world’s ongoing condemnation, to cause heaven to come to earth whenever
and wherever the Gospel is preached and lived, so as to bring an always
increasing group of sons (and daughters) into His kingdom through means of a
complicit trust in Him and His promises. Those that call Jesus Lord are
to be ambassadors for the hope of resurrection and restoration, which is the
promise of eternal life to be enjoyed and experienced at every moment, as they look
forward, with great expectation, to that blessed hope.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

If the revelation of
Jesus as the Son of God was yet another demonstration of the Creator God’s love
for His world, and if the manifestation of His glory, in and through the Christ,
was for the purpose of causing people to believe in Him (to acknowledge and
worship Him as Creator) so that eternal life (an entrance into the purpose that
the covenant God had always intended for those that He had created to bear His
image) could be experienced (rather than the continual perishing under the
reign of death that had been brought into the world and exacerbated by the
other sons---Adam, Israel, Solomon), then the idea of being “in Christ” takes
on an extreme importance.

Those that are in
union with the Christ (in Christ) are said to be brought into that union, with
such being demonstrated through the confession of Jesus as Lord of all (in both
word and deed), by the power that is somehow inherent in the preached Gospel
(Jesus is Lord). This power of the Gospel is understood to be somehow
transmitted by the activity of the Spirit of the Creator God, as one of the manifestations
of the very power that is said to have raised Jesus up from the dead, and which
is still at work in this world according to the plan and purpose of the Creator
God.

Additionally, those
that are in union with the Christ are said to have been crucified and
resurrected with Him, for the purpose of being kings and priests to the Most
High God, along with the responsibilities implied by those titles.
Indeed, to go beyond that, those that are in union with the Christ are identified
as sons of God.

Those in union with the
Christ are those that make up His church and are citizens of the kingdom of the
Creator God (kingdom of heaven, rule of God)---a renewed people of the Creator
(a new creation), charged with, among other things, reflecting the glory of their
God into the world through kingdom-oriented and Spirit-inspired actions.
Effectively, it could be said that those that are in union with the Christ are
called to be Solomon’s, Israel’s, and Adam’s for the world, doing so with the mysterious
power of the resurrection at their backs, as they speak and live the message of
the Gospel, orienting their thoughts and their lives around the fact that Jesus
is Lord.

This means that
Christians are called to live a life that is set apart and demonstrably
different in their engagement with the world. This does not mean that
Christians hide away, buried underneath the weight of what could very well be a
fruitless asceticism, withdrawn and distant from the world in a vain and
conceited striving for a pseudo-holiness that is nothing more than a
self-serving and selfish attempt to shrink back from the awesome
responsibilities that attend this glorious union and its weighty demands.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

As has been previously
stated, Scripture insists that Adam was charged to steward the creation and to
be the out-raying of the Creator God’s glory in and to the creation in which the
Creator is said to have walked with man. The whole of the creation was this
God’s temple. By Adam’s sin (not being the out-raying of his God’s glory
through dis-trust and self-idolatry) this was lost, and the world fell into a
terrible state of disrepair, becoming something quite far from the “very good”
condition in which it had been ordered by God.

As the outworking of
the covenantal promises to Abraham, Israel was then charged with stewardship
over a small portion of that now-fallen creation, with their God promising to
dwell with them in the land (their God’s temple) that had been promised to them
through Abraham. From that land, they were to show forth the glory of the
covenant God so that all nations would stream to the land of Israel in search
of the reasons for their blessings, which would ultimately mean that all men
were searching for Israel’s God. Their record in this, as suggested by
their defining historical narrative, is mostly one of failure.

Solomon was then
specifically charged with building a temple within the land. This Temple, located within the promised
land, would then be recognized to be the specific place of the Creator God’s
dwelling with His people. It would then be to the Temple itself to which
nations would be drawn, as the Temple itself was filled with the Creator God’s
glory, as well as being a magnificent structure that visually testified to the
glory of the God for Whom it was made to represent. Solomon, however, did
not show forth his wholehearted trust in his God, falling prey to idolatry as
had Adam and Israel before him. As a result, the Temple of Jerusalem
itself would come to be defiled and destroyed, just as the land of promise had
been defiled by idolatry, as had the whole of the creation. All of the
Creator God’s temples had been brought to the place of desolation.

When Jesus came upon
the stage of history, the temple in Jerusalem was not the temple that the
Creator God had ordered to be built (at least according to Israel’s story).
Rather, it was the temple that had been built under the direction of Cyrus, the
king of the Persian empire (who was recognized as the ruler of the world at
that point in time). It was not the place where the glory of the Creator God
was reflected into the world, and indeed, Jesus would deride the temple
authorities as having turned this temple into a den of robbers, where theft and
oppression and injustice took place on a regular basis.

In contradistinction to the temple that then
stood in Jerusalem, Jesus would speak of Himself as the true Temple. In
doing so, He would speak of Himself as the place in which the glory of the
Creator God now resided (according to the widely held belief that the Messiah
would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God), thereby making a
physical temple irrelevant and redundant.

If He was the Son of
God, and if He did understand the role and understanding of the son of God within
the historical tradition that has here been explored, then it seems likely that
Jesus would have understood at least a portion of His role to be the rebuilding
and restoration of the very first Temple which the Creator God had originally
desired to be the place of His dwelling, that being His once very good
creation. Yes, He would be for Israel what Solomon had been intended to
be. He would be for the nations what Israel had been intended to
be. He would be for the whole of creation what Adam had been intended to
be.